***Please watch for the sections where we need your help!!

Speak Up

E-Mail Govt.
It allows you to "Write To Congress" This service allows you to send e-mail messages to Congress or to print your own letter to send via U.S. Mail.
You can run a search on the governmental agency and viola you can send your mail. I have placed this handy page right on my desktop.

At the same time she sent me this little goodie.
Library of Congress
This address allows you to directly access the Library of Congress' where you can then find out about all Bills pending re National Parks and Public Lands Act etc.
Another desktop tool.

Thank you:
Net Researcher Merrie Lindsay
for this information.

Another Wolf Killing With Self Defense As The Reason

Portrait of a Wolf Killer

Late afternoon August 13, 2001 a public hearing in Salmon, Idaho was scheduled for the following day. The extreme short notice was clear after the meeting. US Senator Mike Crapo well known for his anti-wolf stance eyed Tim Sundles. Witnesses at the meeting reported, "Crapo got up and acted as though all was said but he wanted to make sure everybody had their say so he asked, "Is there anyone else?" Sundles became speaker 18. Sundles was not on the speaker sign up sheet. Sundles commenced to spin the wolf attack tale. He claimed he and his wife were on vacation, wolves stalked them and finally the alpha male attacked and he killed it.

Full details of the meeting can be viewed at:


I encountered Tim Sundles on the Huntboard2 and Politix at:

We had a more than lively exchange ... Tim is a lawyers nightmare whose ego over rides good sense. He was warned more than once by a lawyer from Denver to watch what he said. He ignored that advice.

The law requires the killing of an endangered wolf be reported within 24 hours. Tim missed that deadline by weeks. He told me "but you stated I was guilty of violating a 24 hr. reporting rule, which I physicaly could not keep".

Sundles maintains he had to break camp and pack out before he could make the report ... that took 2 or 3 weeks? He led rangers in to reclaim the dead wolf in less than a day. He left at 4:30 am and was back posting on the MB that evening by 11:23 p.m.

Below are direct quotes by Tim Sundles to the Message Board.

Some of the posts vanished after the killing but these were saved.

"As far as Im concerened the wolves were delisted the day they were put here. It is of no consequence to me. Why should I be concerned about a bunch of federal lists that are simply window dressing to make possible the confiscation of God given freedoms"

"THese folks have neither the time or money for anything other than work. Even the time and money it takes to buy and distribute poison is a problem. "

"You may hunt wolves in Colorado as soon as they are introduced, but the legaly part will have to be over looked. "

"The simple truth is that we would be over run with them by now if the locals were not shooting and poisoning them."

"Every time I see the "green light" go out in a woves eyes I think how unfair to the wolf it is and how the people that brought them here to undermine our constitutonal rights should be the one suffering our wrath”

"Ive seen radio collard wolves before and examined them up close--heh heh heh."

"BUT HERE IS THE GOOD PART. Those retards killed the wolf accidentaly by putting it into shock when they captured it. (most inhumane thing Ive ever seen--really) ALSO, the bigger wolf of the two got away because he was not collared and he was the instagator in the first place. (thats really ok, cause the locals took care of him later--and it only cost whatever one round of center fire rifle ammo is worth) Those Feds. wtih their educations, agendas and job security, could screw up anything."

" I was shooting at a downward angle and the 180gr. bullet smashed his shoulder, went through his heart and lungs, then through his guts and stopped in his back leg. Even with all that damage, the smallish bear ran for several yards, climbed into some rocks and screamed for about 30 seconds, then expired. They can really be tough sometimes. That makes two less elk calve killers in Idaho."

"Who says that threats of civil disobedience have no effect on Gov.? I was kind of looking forward to shooting federal bears--Darn."

" Im past being mad over the confiscation of freedom that these wolf and bear reintroductions are accomplishing--the anger does more damage to me and my family than it is worth. So Im just going to do what Im going to do--no emotion!"

I leave you to draw your own conclusion on what occured with this shooting.

In the meantime we all wait to see if again the government is going to just drop a ball on laws on the books to keep these animals safe.

State Wildlife Management

The Pervasive Influence of Hunters, Hunting, Culture and Money

(Selected Portions)
Wolves do not purchase hunting licenses, and most state wildlife managers draw their pay from revenue derived from sale of hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses. That, in brief, is what is wrong with wildlife management in America . . . (Williams 1986)

The extent to which wildlife and its habitat are managed and manipulated in the United States to produce animals for hunters to kill is astounding habitat is managed for maximum deer numbers; wildlife is trapped and transplanted to hunting areas; fires are set; trees are planted; trees are mown down; fields are flooded; fields are drained; tests are conducted to determine if dietary supplements will produce larger antlers; research projects aim at identifying th hardiest non-native pheasant species to release; predators of game animals are destroyed so that hunters can kill them instead.

And killed they are -- millions upon millions of wild animals each year. These animals are a product of the land but are claimed by state wildlife management systems and awarded to hunters to ensure that they will continue to buy hunting licenses. Yet the system is bigger than that for the states, these animals are a means to an end, a guarantee that wildlife agencies will survive without having to change.

Full artical page now gone.

October 3, 1998

Now lets talk about the fox guarding the hen house here.
Is this a jaded perspective with an agenda or what?
Since when did man have the ability to control anything?
It is all he can do to manage his own life much less control the lives of the animals around him. We are in the mess we are in now because of man.

Public Attitudes about Predators
By Stewart Truelsen
Stewart Truelsen is the director of broadcast services for the American Farm Bureau Federation.

More than half the respondents in a public opinion study said seeing the track of a bear or mountain lion would help them enjoy outdoor recreation more.
Maybe the response would be different if the words "fresh track" had been inserted. But, there is no denying that the public has a love affair with predatory birds and animals. A soon-to-be-published study by the Berryman Institute of Wildlife Damage Management at Utah State University confirms it.

Nearly 80 percent of the respondents in the study agreed with the statement, "I enjoy knowing that bears and wolves live in North America." An approval rating like that would make the president envious.

What the public may not realize is that some predators are threatening the existence of other wildlife species. The Berryman Institute compiled information about the loss of birds and their nests to medium-sized predators like skunks, raccoons and foxes. In the Upper Midwest, these animals are raiding duck nests and inflicting huge losses. Small shorebirds called piping plovers are an endangered species, thanks in part to the red fox. Predators also are contributing to the decline of songbirds.

These and other examples were used in the opinion study to gauge public reaction to predator control to protect bird populations. Is the public willing to see predators controlled?
Control usually means killed. There was a time the answer would have been a resounding "Yes." Now, it's not so certain. Some animal rights groups oppose all control, and are trying to sway public opinion.

What does the public think? The results, as interpreted by Dr. Terry Messmer, suggest the public supports predator control when necessary. But Messmer and colleagues said, "Respondent support for predator control as a general management tool was less in situations where threats were not identified." In other words, when the public understands what's at stake, they are willing to accept control as a solution. In fact, 60 percent of the people surveyed approved of hunting as a method to manage predator populations. Trapping got less support, 47 percent. But when asked if reducing predator numbers is the best way to solve predator problems, more people disagreed than agreed.

Some answers in the poll may be troubling to farmers and ranchers. Fully half the respondents disagreed with the statement, "There is no need to reintroduce predators where they are not currently found." Almost half also disagreed with the statement, "Livestock and poultry industries suffer large losses because of predators." Only a third thought predators living near livestock and poultry operations will eventually kill domestic animals. Nearly 70 percent doubted predators kill more than they can eat. Responses in the study indicated to the researchers that the public has a "somewhat idealized view of predator ecology."

Wildlife professionals who have spent their careers trying to understand wildlife are becoming increasingly concerned with understanding public attitudes about wildlife, and how they impact wildlife management decisions.
Farmers and ranchers who are impacted by predators and provide so much habitat for wildlife in general share in this concern.

Original Piece

Eight sub-species of tiger, comprising more than 100,000 individuals, roamed the Earth at the turn of the last century. But in the last 50-60 years - five cycles of the Year of the Tiger - three have become extinct due mainly to human persecution and habitat loss. The Bali tiger was the first to go in the 1940s, followed by the Caspian in the 1970s.

For more information on this wonderful creature visit:
World Wildlife Federation


AP reported 7/30 more than a dozen environmental groups ask Interior Secretary Babbitt to reopen an investigation into the shooting of a Mexican gray wolf in Arizona earlier this year. The groups say evidence clearly shows Richard Humphrey, a retired Tucson postal worker, did not kill the wolf to protect his wife. Instead, the groups say evidence shows the wolf was first shot broadside as it was standing still.


The re-opening of this case was refused in the clear face of evidance that this was a deliberate killing.

Letter Sent

Camper Who Shot Mexican Wolf Worries About Risk To Others
By David Bowser

TUCSON, Ariz. — Richard Humphrey and his family are going camping this week.
That wouldn't be big news, but the family's last camping trip spawned a full-blown federal investigation.
It was Humphrey who last spring shot and killed one of the government's reintroduced Mexican gray wolves after it attacked the family dog and menaced their camp.

Originally from Wichita, Kan., Humphrey joined the U.S. Air Force in the early 1960s and was stationed in Arizona from 1962 to 1965. Later, after a tour in Vietnam as a civilian defense worker and then in Guam at an Air Force satellite tracking station, he returned to Tucson to work for the U.S. Postal Service. It was here that he and his wife, Helen, settled to raise their two daughters.

They lead a quiet life in a middle class neighborhood. With firm religious beliefs, their lives are family-oriented, and much of their free time is spent outdoors. Humphrey's oldest daughter is involved in the Junior Ranger program at Saguaro National Park at Tucson. "She's the first Junior Volunteer they ever had at Saguaro," Humphrey says proudly. "They used her as a guinea pig to see if it would work. She loves to work with kids. She loves the out-of-doors. She's very experienced in the out-of-doors."

The family often goes camping together. It was on such a camping trip, to celebrate Humphrey's retirement as a letter carrier, that this quiet man was thrust into the blinding light of controversy. It began about 7:30 a.m., April 28, near Four Bar Mesa in the Apache National Forest where the family had pitched camp the night before. Humphrey was cutting firewood when he looked up to see what he first thought was a dog. But it wasn't a dog. It was a Mexican gray wolf, one of 11 such animals that had been reintroduced to the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest less than 30 days before.

The Mexican gray wolf had been extinct in the American Southwest for half a century. A cooperative venture between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Arizona and New Mexico game departments, various zoos and other federal agencies returned three groups of wolves to this rugged terrain on March 29. Humphrey was aware of the stories in the local newspapers but thought the wolves had been released farther north. He was surprised to find them at a campsite he had been using for 20 years.

As he watched, a second wolf came out of the trees. They appeared to be stalking him.
He backed up to his tent, alerted his family and loaded his rifle. Humphrey says he expected the wolves to be gone when he stepped out of the tent, but they had come closer. He yelled, and they moved away slowly, circling the camp.
The campers watched the wolves for about an hour, catching glimpses of them through the dense scrub oak. Finally, they heard the wolves off to the east of the camp on a ridge, howling.
"If you ever hear them, you won't mistake them for a coyote," he says. "It's completely different. It's louder, just a different tone."
Coyotes have a higher pitched yap and bark, he says.
"These things have a big howl."

A few minutes later, they heard the wolves farther down the canyon, apparently moving away. Humphrey didn't know at the time if it was the same pair or more wolves. He kept wondering what they were doing down here below the Mogollon Rim in the junipers. He had read that they'd been released north around Alpine. He thought they were just passing through and that was the end of it. By mid-morning, Humphrey had started working with the girls on their lessons in the tent.
"We home school," he explains.

Helen had gone over to a nearby stream to read a book. Suddenly, she says, she was overcome with a feeling of dread. She stood, raced back toward the tent and yelled for her husband.
The girls later would say that their mother's voice sounded frantic.
As Humphrey emerged from the tent, Helen told him to get the rifle.
Together, they walked a few yards to the west of the tent. Beyond a dilapidated house that had fallen in, there was the sound of a scuffle in the leaves behind a juniper.
Humphrey yelled. A wolf sprang from the tree and ran off, away from them. As Helen watched the running wolf, Humphrey looked back at the tree to see a second wolf come around from the other side toward him and his wife.
As the second wolf closed on him, Humphrey raised his rifle and fired. Through the four-power scope, he says all he could see was hair.
The wolf spun around, Humphrey says, as the first bullet apparently hit a leg. Humphrey fired again, and the wolf headed into the trees.
The Humphreys' Australian Shepherd, Buck, came out from behind the juniper, dragging his right front leg. As Humphrey followed the wolf, Helen went back to the tent to take care of the dog, which was bleeding profusely.
Humphrey found the wolf 30 or 40 feet away, seriously injured. He went ahead and ended its suffering.

They loaded the dog, which had suffered a broken leg and a chewed-up belly, into their Ford Bronco and headed south toward the community of Clifton, Ariz., looking for a veterinarian. Along the way, they found a road crew with a radio. Humphrey told them what happened. The story was radioed to the highway department's office, which in turn called the Arizona Fish and Game Department.

A few miles down the road, they found a Forest Service employee and a construction worker with a cellular phone. The process was repeated, and the construction worker gave them directions to a veterinarian in Clifton.
"Our main concern was to get to a veterinarian," Humphrey says. "We didn't know how badly Buck was hurt."
When the Humphreys arrived in Clifton, the veterinarian wasn't there. They used a phone at a nearby Circle K convenience store to call a veterinarian in Safford, Ariz., and borrowed a pencil from the clerk to write down directions. They went on to Safford, some 100 miles from their campsite.
On the way, the Humphreys' youngest daughter noticed that in the excitement her mother was still holding the pencil they had borrowed from the clerk.
"She was worried because that wasn't our pencil," Helen says.

By the time the dog was treated and a cast placed on his leg, the family returned to camp some $325 lighter (by mid-July, the bills had climbed to close to $1000), and Humphrey found he was being investigated for killing the wolf.

This tall, studious-looking man with more the air of a college professor than a hunter, returned home and kept to himself the next several months as federal officials continued their investigation.

Environmental activist groups were outraged. Local newspaper accounts of the incident were mostly derogatory, Humphrey said. After officials announced that no charges would be filed against Humphrey, activist groups in the area claimed it was a whitewash. Finally, Humphrey broke his silence.
"I want to set the record straight," he says.

What upsets Humphrey, he explains, is that he didn't know there were wolves in the area where he camped. He says he wasn't warned, and worries that campers and hikers in the area could be in danger.
Initially, Humphrey and his family planned to go to Black River and Snake Creek, but when they got to the turn-off, the road was blocked with three feet of snow. They backtracked from the 9000 foot elevation where they had planned to go to a campsite Humphrey had used for 20 years about 6500 feet high.
"When we pulled off the highway, there was no indication of wolves being in there," Humphrey says. "There were no signs. There were no warnings. No people. Nobody monitoring them. Nothing. That night, we never heard them howling."

Most wild animals are afraid of human beings, he said, and will run when approached by people. He said the wolves he encountered did not appear to be afraid of man.
"They acted like stray dogs," Humphrey says.
"We could see them standing there," Helen says.
"We just stood there and looked at them and thought, 'this is weird,'" Humphrey says.
When he yelled at them, the wolves moved off slowly among the trees.
"They never seemed to react much to his voice," Helen says.
"If it had been a different kind of animal, we would have really thought something was wrong with them," she adds. "Rabies or something."
They looked sick, Humphrey says.

"If that had been a lion or bear or coyote, we would have shot it even without a tag," he confirms. "They acted strange. They were too close, and they weren't afraid of us."

Investigators verified that wolf tracks were less than 50 feet away from the Humphreys' tent.

The Humphreys also didn't know how many wolves they were facing. "We thought there were more wolves up there," Helen says. "We had no idea how many there were."
"I thought to myself, 'I can't let that wolf get any closer,'" Humphrey says. "It was on us just like that. They had talked about releasing five or six at a time, and I thought, 'if there are five or six, we're in trouble.'"

That afternoon after the shooting, the Humphreys retraced their steps, going back to the campsite. They stopped at the Circle K convenience store in Clifton to return the pencil they had used earlier in the day and met the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service investigator, who was there getting ice.
The agent said he didn't have time to take a statement then, Humphreys says; he wanted to get to the campsite before dark. Other officials were already at the campsite when the Humphreys returned. They had located the wolf's body through the radio collar.
After looking around, the investigator came down to the Humphreys' tent and began filling out his report on the hood of their Bronco in the waning light of evening.
"The first thing he said was that this is not a criminal investigation," Humphreys says. "He said if I wanted a lawyer, we could do it later. I said I had nothing to hide."
When Humphrey asked if that was a release site for the wolves, the inspector told him no.
"He probably had the same information that I had," Humphrey says.

By the time the investigator finished questioning them that night, it was well after dark. The Humphreys had planned to leave, but with the big tent, it takes two hours to pitch or break camp, so they stayed that night.
"We never heard them that night," Humphrey says. "Apparently, there was just the one.
The Humphreys' learned there had been just two wolves in the area. "I'd shot the male," Humphrey says. "The female was still there." Wolf biologists who came the next morning said their directional finders indicated the female was about 400 yards away, east of the camp.

The inspector who had questioned them that first evening had speculated that a ruling would be made on the shooting, but instead, when the agent called Humphrey at home a week and a half later, he said he wanted to bring his supervisor and ask more questions.
Humphrey said the tone of the man's voice worried him, so he called a friend, Guy Sagi, who publishes an outdoor newspaper. Humphrey knew Sagi because Sagi's father was on Humphrey's old mail route.
"He used to stop and check on my father," Sagi says. "He's a great guy. As nice as you can get." Sagi arranged to join Humphrey for the interview with the federal agents. Sagi also brought Dave Hardy, a local attorney and former assistant district attorney.
Sagi videotaped the interview.
Humphrey asked if there were dog bites on the wolf.
"Whatever wolf was on Buck's leg would have suffered some dog bites," Humphrey says.
He was told that officials didn't check for dog bites in the autopsy.

Within three days, they captured the female that remained in the area of the camp. She later gave birth to a pup, but it died.

Humphrey and his family kept quiet during the investigation and wanted to stay out of the limelight following the dropping of charges, but they finally decided to go public with their story to set the record straight and in hopes of keeping harm from coming to hikers and campers in the Apache National Forest.

"If somebody was hurt, it would have been our fault because didn't say anything," Humphrey says.

There were no signs warning of wolves at the trail heads as the hiking trails move off from the highway into the forest, they note.
By mid-July, there were still no signs except for the immediate areas north of Humphrey's campsite, where two of the three groups of wolves were released. Horses graze where the Humphreys had camped. Nearby, the piñon and juniper woodland gives way to broad pastures where cattle graze.

"I feel like a victim," Humphrey said. "I feel like the wolf and I were both victims."

"We are so grateful God saved Buck," Helen says, "but it could have been our girls ... or one of us."

A second round of releases is scheduled for the area next spring, according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials.

I can only wonder if Mr. Humphrey's saw the wolves earlier in the morning, he identified them as wolves....
why did he leave his dog running free to have an altercation?
I am a dog owner...I too love my dog...
If the Humphrey's were so fearful why did they not get into their vehicle and leave the area. It looks like there was plenty of time.(admittedly at least an hour) If they were afraid perhaps there were more than just the two they saw...even more reason for them to leave the area.

It was their choice to stay....on top of that Mrs. Humphrey's ventured off alone to read a book....with sick looking possibly rabid animals near by? (again their own words)

I can only wonder when this family became frightened? At what time did the wolves look sickly or possibly rabid? Was it before the killing or after the killing? Was it before a talk with the authorities/attorney or after? Why had the Fish and Game department just let this pass? Here in Calif a farmer accidently ran over an endangered Kangaroo Rat and his tractor was confiscated...he was heavily fined and threatened with jail time.....for an accident.....this is clearly NO ACCIDENT!!

Why indeed was the area NOT POSTED?....The fact that is was not posted is no excuse for Mr. Humphrey's action. Now the Fish and Game is dropping this matter because they themself failed perhaps? Maybe they just want it all to be swept under the carpet?

[ Back] [ E-Mail] [ Library]
[ Read My Guestbook!] [ Sign My Guestbook!]